Standardizing Caltrain Service Allows Improved Schedule Coordination Coordinating Schedules Coordinating Fares Shifting to standardized clockface schedules Further fare coordination presents an with electrification will help Caltrain better opportunity to increase ridership for Caltrain coordinate transit connections and partner agencies A Distributed Skip Stop pattern could offer timed Improved fare coordination could make connections to high and low frequency buses, transfers more seamless and convenient for all BART, and VTA Light Rail. riders and could help Caltrain provide more equitable access for low- and middle-income A Two Zone with Express pattern could offer timed riders who are more likely to connect via transit connections to BART and low frequency buses but would some connections would remain challenging 23
Shuttles Fill Gaps in the Transit Network Public and Private Shuttles Fill Gaps in Schedules and Service Areas Service to areas Timed connections when Augmented capacity where where buses do buses can’t coordinate with buses cannot handle peak- not operate Caltrain’s schedule period demand 24
Many Types of Shuttles Operate on the Caltrain Corridor Publicly Managed Privately Managed Caltrain and the SMCTA manage 33 shuttles in San Major employers like Stanford and Genentech Mateo and Santa Clara Counties connecting to Caltrain operate first/last mile shuttles free to the public • 31 are free to the public Dozens of other employers offer private shuttles • 26 are co-funded by employers for employees only • 4 are community shuttles oriented toward local travel needs 25
Shuttle Funding Structure The current system of shuttle funding and operations is extremely varied and complex. Funding comes from many different sources and varies significantly from route to route. Managers and Operators Counties Funding Sources JPB Caltrain State Grants Santa Clara County SamTrans Commute.org Caltrain Shuttles SMCTA San Mateo County Cities C/CAG Caltrain Shuttles Cities Employers Employers 26
Ridership on Publicly Managed Shuttles is Declining Ridership Comparison: Shuttle Ridership is Publicly Managed Shuttles Lack Caltrain vs. Publicly- Declining as Caltrain Shuttles Struggle to Reliability and Time- Managed Shuttles Ridership Grows Match SamTrans Competitiveness /VTA Productivity Goals Shuttle ridership on publicly 125% Limited funding, managed shuttles has organizational capacity, and declined by 25% since 2014 administrative complexity 6 of 33 routes meet Caltrain Ridership while Caltrain ridership have contributed to ridership SamTrans fixed route increased by 17% loss, including: performance criteria for 100% passengers Three quarters of routes • Driver shortages per revenue hour have lost ridership over the • Circuitous routes JPB/SamTrans/SMCTA Shuttles past five years, with 14 • Inadequate stop routes experiencing losses infrastructure greater than 40% • Competition from 75% private services 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 27
Privately Managed Shuttles Continue to Grow Stanford Marguerite Stanford’s shuttle ridership has increased 16% since 2014. About 20% of all their employees commute via Caltrain. Stanford’s TDM program offers Caltrain Go Passes and financial incentives to employees to discourage driving to work Genentech Genentech and other South San Francisco employers operate two shuttle routes to connect to Caltrain at Millbrae Station. The shuttle is open to the public. 28
Caltrain's Role in Shuttle Operations The current publicly-managed system is under- Caltrain and its partners will need to evolve the resourced to meet the changing needs of the shuttle program to better leverage public buses Caltrain corridor and private partnerships Demand for first/last mile services will increase Caltrain and SamTrans are jointly funding a substantially as land use intensifies and Caltrain service comprehensive study of the shuttle program increases over time Additional work will be needed to further The current system lacks the financial resources and coordination around shuttles with all of operational capacity to efficiently handle increased Caltrain’s member agencies, local jurisdictions demand over time and large employers 29
Pickup & Dropoff Activity is Increasing, but Facilities are Lacking Pickup & drop-off activity is increasing at most Caltrain stations Result of both limited parking as well as Uber/Lyft growth Half of Caltrain stations lack dedicated passenger loading zones Most passenger loading activity occurs in existing surface parking lots and nearby streets Caltrain must think holistically about onsite circulation Station circulation and curb programming are critical to handling increased pickup & dropoff activity while minimizing conflicts 30
Walking & Bicycling Conditions There is substantial need to invest in offsite and onsite bicycle and pedestrian access to stations. However, offsite improvements are outside of Caltrain’s jurisdiction and rely on City-led decisions and processes. This section will focus on onsite improvements to bike parking and pedestrian circulation. 31
Wayside Bike Parking and Bike Sharing are Critical to Expanding Bike Access Onboard bike demand will exceed Improvements to wayside bike parking capacity in the short- and long-term and shared bikes/scooters show promise to scale access Caltrain has provided significant on-board capacity within its system, but expanding onboard bike A $4M investment in bike parking is underway capacity beyond the commitments already made by and will be used to fund improved bike the JPB will limit overall passenger capacity, parking, including e-lockers exacerbating crowding issues 4 % of San Francisco and San Jose passengers use shared bikes or scooters to access Caltrain – a total expected to grow with the recent reintroduction of shared e-bikes Investing in shared bike stations present an opportunity to scale capacity over time 32
Pedestrian Facilities Need Improvement Caltrain stations need to prioritize pedestrians to handle expanded passenger volumes at stations Most stations will need programmatic investments to accommodate increased ridership, improve onsite circulation, and reduce conflicts between modes Major stations may need focused design efforts to handle increased volumes, particularly in the context of grade separations and joint development projects 33
Station Upgrades Needed to Accommodate Increased Ridership Examples of upgrades needed to accommodate increased ridership Expanded Strategically Clipper-integrated Improved More Level Shelters to located Clipper ticket machines boarding Wayfinding Pedestrian- offer shade readers at station (coming soon to and scale lighting and weather entrances and most stations) Signage protection along platforms 34
Strong Growth Predicted in +120,000 Ridership and Passengers Traveling Station Use by to and from Caltrain 2040 10X Under the Long Range Service Vision adopted by the Caltrain Board, ridership Growth in use for is projected to triple from today’s levels. some stations This will mean significant changes to the compared to today way that people access the Caltrain system 35
Making improvements to enhance walking, biking, and passenger loading are the least costly access investments Capital Cost per Drive Passenger Shuttle/Bus Pickup/Dropoff Bicycle Parking Pedestrian Connections Operating Cost per Passenger 36
Walking and biking are also the most scalable/sustainable access modes Scalability to Accommodate Pedestrian Demand Connections Bicycle Parking Shuttle/Bus Pickup/Dropoff Drive Sustainability 37
Caltrain Station Management Toolbox Caltrain received a grant from the Federal Transit Administration to develop a tool to analyze the effects of access investments and joint development for Caltrain Based on this analysis, Caltrain developed a Station Management Toolbox for staff use to evaluate individual and system wide changes – this tool has been updated to support the Business Plan analysis 38
Three Alternative Access Improvement Scenarios Explored 1: Ad-Hoc Approach 2: Expand Parking Supply 3: Prioritize Non-Auto Access and Joint • Investments and programs • Investments and programs Development occur as funding becomes focus on growing parking supply available- similar to today in proportion to ridership • Investments and programs emphasize modes other than • Investments and programs are • Caltrain organization becomes park-and-ride mostly led by entities other more proactive in building new than Caltrain parking garages including land • Caltrain organization acquisition as needed becomes more proactive in • Caltrain is mostly agnostic to shuttles, service integration, the types of investments than pedestrian/bicycle occur infrastructure, and TOD 39
Analysis Assumptions Drive Results The Following Assumptions Were Used in This Scenario Analysis: 1: Ad-Hoc Approach 2: Expand Parking Supply 3: Prioritize Non-Auto Access and Joint • 1.5x increase in parking supply • 3x increase in parking supply Development • No change to shuttle services • No change to shuttle services • No new parking supply • Moderate improvement to • Minimal improvement to bike/ped • 3x increase in shuttles service bike/ped access access • Substantial improvement to • Moderate development • No new joint development bike/ped access intensity at feasible sites with • New parking assumed to cost all parking replaced • High intensity development at all $100,000 per space due to sites without replacement • New parking assumed to cost garage, parking replacement, parking $75,000 per space due to and land acquisition costs garage and parking replacement costs 40
Change in Ridership & Mode of Access through 2040 Change in Ridership Change in Mode of Access Prioritizing park-and-ride access shifts more 40% passengers to driving but 35% results in lower ridership 30% than investing in other modes. 25% 20% 15% Maximizing joint development, active 10% transportation, and transit 5% access results in higher ridership and less driving. 0% Walk Bike Transit Drop Off Drive 1 - Ad-Hoc 2 - Expand Parking Supply 3 - Prioritize Non-Auto Access and Joint Development 41
Change in Costs & Revenues Tripling parking supply could cost double that of Expanding access for non-auto modes more than triples the revenue generated by expanded parking supply. investing in non-auto modes. Approximate Cost Approximate Additional over 50 Years Annual Revenue 42
Station Access Results Present a Variety of Policy Questions What is Caltrain’s Role Is More Parking Worth How Should Caltrain the Investment? Address Shuttle and in Bike/Ped Access? Bus Connections? • Parking garages are costly • Improving bicycle parking and (analysis assumed $100,000 per • There is substantial demand to shared use at stations represents new space including replacement a key opportunity to scale shuttle/bus service to parking and land acquisition) accommodate long-term match growth of Caltrain ridership growth service and development • Building new garages may come • Addressing offsite barriers to at the expense of housing and • However, organizational and pedestrian and bicycle access office TOD operational challenges may limit are necessary to accommodate the potential for expansion • Increasing parking supply is less ridership growth, but these areas effective in supporting ridership are typically outside Caltrain’s • Ongoing operational subsidies growth than investments in other jurisdiction are high modes 43
Equity Assessment 44
Why Focus on Caltrain is Focusing on Equity for Multiple Reasons Equity? • Stakeholder and Policy maker feedback through the Business Plan and other Caltrain undertakings have made it clear that equity is an important priority for the system The equity assessment is intended to help Caltrain understand how it can improve equity within its system- both in the near term and as • Caltrain is planning to grow. The Long Range the Service Vision is implemented over time. Service Vision calls for tripling the system’s ridership. To do this, we want our service to be an accessible, useful and attractive choice for all members of our community • Caltrain will need public investment to achieve its vision. Focusing on equity helps ensure that we deliver benefits and value to all members of the public 45
Equity Assessment Opportunities & Challenges • Review of existing plans • Stakeholder interviews Work Plan • Market assessment The equity assessment is intended to help Analysis of the Service Vision Caltrain understand how the Service Vision • Qualitative & quantitative evaluation could improve equitable access to Caltrain of the Service Vision and develop a series of policy interventions (will be presented in April) that would improve equitable access over time. Recommendations • Context-specific recommendations developed from the analysis of the Service Vision and opportunities and challenges (will be presented in April) 46
Existing Plans Review 1. Bayview Community Based Transportation Plan (2019) 2. Redwood City Citywide Transportation Plan (2018) 3. Moving San Mateo County Forward: Housing and Transit at a Crossroads (2018) 4. San Bruno/South San Francisco Community-Based Transportation Plan (2012) 5. San Mateo County Transportation Plan for Low-Income Populations (2012) 6. East Palo Alto Community-Based Transportation Plan (2004) 7. Community-Based Transportation Plan for East San Jose (2009) 8. Community-Based Transportation Plan for Gilroy (2006) 9. Equitable Access to Caltrain: Mapping and Scheduling Analysis (2019) 47 47
1 1 Community Stakeholder Stakeholder Survey Responses Engagement 6 In-Person Community Stakeholder Interviews - To better understand existing barriers for 2 in each Caltrain county disadvantaged riders and residents in the corridor, surveys were sent to community-based organizations along the corridor. Representatives who wanted to provide more feedback were 6 Community interviewed in person or over the phone. Stakeholder Phone Interviews 48 48
Feedback From Better Service For Nontraditional Work Schedules And Non-work Trips Stakeholders Currently, Caltrain is focused on traditional commute hours, whereas low-income and vulnerable populations are more likely to have commutes that fall outside of these times. Service & Stations Recommendations • More mid-day, late evening, and early morning service • Connecting services during non-typical commute times need to be coordinated Open Stations In Communities Of Concern The Bayview neighborhood of San Francisco would like to see the Oakdale station built to replace the Paul Ave station closed in More Frequent Service 1999. North Fair Oaks would like to see a local station on either Upgraded service would offer more flexibility the Caltrain or Dumbarton rail corridor. and choice to access the corridor and better connections to partner transit, making travel easier for those who need it 49 49
Feedback From Better Connecting Bus Service Currently, existing and potential Caltrain riders are poorly served by connecting bus services in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Stakeholders Recommendations • Better scheduling coordination with SamTrans and VTA to reduce the number of bus connections that result in long waits Station Connections or insufficient (<5 minutes) transfer times • More frequent connecting bus services to Caltrain stations Better Bike & Pedestrian Connections Biking and walking are low-cost modes that, if enhanced, could expand access to Caltrain services. Recommendations • Better bike facilities such as lockers and racks at stations • Build separated grade crossings at tracks • Facilitate and encourage bike sharing at stations 50 50
Feedback From Stakeholders System Accessibility Better Rider Information The fragmented nature of public transit service in the Bay Area Accessible Station Design makes it difficult for riders, especially those from marginalized Some Caltrain stations are poorly lit, provide limited access to ADA and limited English-proficient backgrounds, to navigate myriad riders, and feel uninviting to riders systems and agencies Recommendations Recommendations • Provide amenities at stations that improve rider experience, such • Area-based maps and schedules that show services from all as more lighting, shelter from the elements, and seating agencies, ideally in multiple languages • Implement level boarding at all stations • Conduct outreach to teach people how to ride, perhaps with “captive audiences” such as ESL or citizenship classes • Better utilize social media to advertise Caltrain service and connect with potential riders, especially youth 51 51
Feedback From Stakeholders Discounted Fares For Low-income Riders Currently, Caltrain does not offer discounts for low- income riders and has a significantly lower share of low-income riders Fares & TOD compared with other agencies along the corridor (Muni, VTA, and SamTrans) Recommendations More Affordable Housing Near Stations • Offer a reduced fare or subsidy program for low-income Housing along the Peninsula is becoming increasingly expensive and inaccessible to low- riders income and transit-dependent households. • Revisit the zone fare structure to make sure that it is not disincentivizing the use of any connecting bus service Recommendation • Partner with jurisdictions along the corridor to prioritize developing affordable housing and implement anti-displacement or local preference policies near stations 52 52
1. Does Caltrain ridership reflect corridor communities? Tool: census and on-board survey data Equity Assessment Key Questions 2. Do the travel patterns of lower income and minority communities reduce their likelihood of using Caltrain? Tool: Census Transportation Planning Products data The equity assessment will help us to understand how the Service Vision affects equitable access to Caltrain and 3. What policy levers could Caltrain shift to will identify a series of potential policy increase ridership from low income and interventions that could improve minority communities? equitable access further Tool: Review of fare structure and service plans, stakeholder interviews, plan review 53
The Corridor is Diverse Within a two-mile station area: 20% of households are located within an MTC-designated Community of Concern 29% of households are low income (annual income less than $50,000) 63% of residents identify as a person of color 54
Residents within 2 Miles Household Income Race Low Income (< $50K), 29% White, 37% High Income (> Person of $100K), Color, 63% 49% Middle Income ($50K - $100K), 22% Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2017. Low-income defined by MTC as <$50,000 or <200% of the Federal poverty level; high-income defined as >$100,000. 55
100% Caltrain Rider 90% Income does not 80% 49% Match that of 70% 74% 60% Corridor Residents 50% 40% 22% Very-low, low, and middle-income brackets are underrepresented in 30% Caltrain ridership relative to the 14% 20% surrounding corridor 17% 10% 15% 6% 4% 0% Riders 2-Mile Station Area Residents <$25K $25K-50K $50K-$100K >$100K Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2017. 2019 Triennial Caltrain Survey 56
100% 5% 10% Caltrain Rider 90% Race/Ethnicity 80% 37% 70% does not Match 42% 60% that of Corridor 50% Residents 28% 40% 30% 36% White and Asian neighbors are 20% overrepresented in Caltrain ridership and 27% Latinx neighbors are significantly 10% 9% underrepresented relative to the 3% 3% surrounding corridor 0% Riders 2-Mile Station Area Residents Black Hispanic/Latinx Asian White Mixed/Other Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2017, 2019 Triennial Caltrain Survey 57
Do the Travel Patterns of Lower Income and Minority Communities Reduce their Likelihood of Using Caltrain? This question is answered by exploring: • Commute Trips vs. Non-Commute Trips: Does trip-making by Caltrain riders and other commuters within the Caltrain corridor vary by income? Do commute travel patterns vary by income? • Parallel Transit Routes: Is there a difference in the way low-income and minority riders travel along parallel transit routes? 58
Commuting in the Corridor Any work trip that has the work, home, or both trip-ends within 2-miles of a Caltrain station is considered a “corridor commute trip” Trips that start and end in the same city are excluded 59
100% Caltrain Rider 90% Income Closely 80% Matches Income of 70% 69% 74% 60% Commuters within 50% 2 Miles of the 40% Corridor 30% 21% 20% 17% 10% 6% 7% 4% 3% 0% Riders 2-Mile Station Area Commuters <$25K $25K-50K $50K-$100K >$100K Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2017. 2019 Triennial Caltrain Survey, Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). *Analysis excludes trips that start and end in the same city. 60
Low Income Commuters Have Similar Corridor Travel Patterns as Other Income Brackets Home-based work trips with at least one end within 2-miles of a station total 40% 19% 41% $100K+ 40% 18% 42% Both live and work along the corridor $50k-$100k 39% 21% 40% Live along the corridor, but work elsewhere Work along the corridor, but live elsewhere $25k-$50k 41% 21% 37% < $25k 37% 25% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). *Analysis excludes trips that start and end in the same city. 61
Only 10% of Corridor Commuters Are Low Income Despite Being 29% of Residents Caltrain is underserving non-work trips. This has the greatest impact on low-income populations. 100% 90% 80% 49% 70% 69% 74% 60% 50% 40% 22% 30% 14% 21% 20% 17% 10% 15% 6% 7% 4% 3% 0% Riders 2-Mile Station Area Commuters 2-Mile Station Area Residents <$25K $25K-50K $50K-$100K >$100K Source: Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). *Analysis excludes trips that start and end in the same city. 62
Parallel Transit • 8, 8AX, 8BX • 9, 9R Service • T-Third Light Rail Several alternative transit lines run • ECR, ECR Rapid parallel to the Caltrain corridor. Although • 292 service is geographically similar to • 398 portions of the Caltrain route, ridership • 397 (OWL) on these routes looks very different than on Caltrain. • 22 • 122 • 66 • 168 • 68 • 182 • 102 • 185 • 103 • 304 • 121 • 522 63
Parallel Routes Proportionally Serve More Low-Income Riders and People of Color than Caltrain Household Income Race/Ethnicity 100% 100% 5% 7% 9% 9% 10% 13% 3% 15% 16% 3% 7% 19% 16% 9% 9% 80% 80% 27% 49% 28% 28% 37% 22% 74% 34% 60% 36% 60% 31% 28% 29% 24% 40% 40% 22% 32% 20% 28% 14% 44% 42% 20% 20% 37% 17% 29% 28% 24% 24% 19% 15% 6% 4% 0% 0% Corridor Caltrain SamTrans SFMTA VTA Corridor Caltrain SamTrans SFMTA VTA Residents Residents White Asian Latinx Black Other <$25,000 $25K-50K $50K-$100K >$100K Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2017, Caltrain 2019 Triennial Survey, SamTrans, SFMTA, and VTA on-board surveys. 64
Parallel Transit Has More Frequent All-Day Service & Serves More Midday Riders Frequency Ridership 9 7000 8 Average Boardings / Hour 6000 7 Tranis/Buses per Hour 5000 6 4000 5 4 3000 3 2000 2 1000 1 0 0 AM Early AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late AM Early AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late PM Night Parallel Transit Caltrain Caltrain (5AM-12AM) SFMTA -T-Third (5AM-12AM) SamTrans - ECR (4AM-2AM) VTA - 522 (5AM-12AM) 65
Schedule & Frequency • Caltrain service is concentrated in the peaks with very little service during the early morning, midday, and evening hours • Parallel transit service runs consistent headways through the peak and midday hours • Parallel transit service operates in the corridor 24/7 • As a result, off-peak demand is largely served by parallel transit service 66
Comparisons: Travel Time & Cost • Caltrain is generally faster but more expensive • Caltrain has a zone-based fare structure: costs increase with distance travelled Travel Time • Parallel systems use flat rates with higher fares for express bus services $3.75 16 min Bayshore to $96.00 monthly $6.00 30 min SoMa, SF $3.00 $163.50 monthly 10 min Palo Alto to $81.00 monthly $2.50 ($5.00*) San Jose 100 min $90 ($180.00*) monthly $6.00 40 min Redwood $163.50 monthly City to $6.00 $2.25 ($4.00*) Redwood 8 min $163.50 monthly 120 min $65.60 (96.00*) SoMa, SF City to $2.25 monthly 30 min Palo Alto $65.60 monthly * Adult fares are higher on all VTA express buses and on SamTrans express buses leaving SF. 67
Discount Programs Transit Approx. Agency Low- Youth Senior Disabled Farebox Income Recovery Cost & Fare Structure 20% ✓ ✓ ✓ Caltrain 70% discount • Within the corridor, SFMTA currently starting provides a low-income discount fare ✓ ✓ ✓ in 2020 BART 70% option • Caltrain will begin participating in a 50% means-based fare option through ✓ ✓ ✓ SFMTA 25% discount MTC’s Clipper START Program (20% discount) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Caltrain’s need to maintain an overall SamTrans 15% high farebox recovery is driven by its underlying funding constraints ✓ ✓ ✓ VTA 11% 68
Discount Pass Programs Household Income are More Heavily Used and Fare Method By Middle- and High- Cost & Fare Structure Income Riders One-Way Ticket Day/Week Pass GoPass Monthly Pass 100% Caltrain’s most discounted pass is 90% the GoPass. In October 2016, the 25% 35% 80% 39% 40% average GoPass customer paid $2.89, 5% versus the non-GoPass customer 70% average of $5.96. 60% 11% 23% 16% 17% 50% 18% 40% The GoPass and Monthly Pass are 14% 14% 30% the fare payment options with the least 48% use by very-low and low-income riders. 20% 36% 30% 29% 10% 0% Very Low- Income Low-Income Middle-Income High-Income Source: Caltrain 2019 Triennial Survey. 69
Equity Station Access by Household Income Data from Caltrain’s 2019 Triennial Survey Drive Bike Transit Walk Drop Off Shuttle >$200K High income riders rely more on driving and biking $150K-$200K $100K-$150K $50K-$100K <50K Low income riders rely more on transit 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 70
Fares & Station Access Access A higher share (25%) of Very Low-Income riders take transit to access the Caltrain system – more than any other income group • Bus to Caltrain fare transfers are not offered • Some Caltrain Monthly Pass holders receive a discounted bus fare when transferring from Caltrain* Very-low income riders are the least likely of all income groups to use a Monthly Pass. * Muni provides a 50-cent discount to all Caltrain transfers who use Clipper. 71
Access • Buses and light rail provide more frequent stop spacing, which means easier access to destinations and transfers • Because Caltrain is unable to easily add more stations, Caltrain can utilize station access policy and time transfers with other transit services to facilitate ease of access 72
What Policy Considerations Can Caltrain Explore to Increase Ridership from Low- Income Communities? Caltrain could attract more low-income riders by: • Expanding service during off-peak hours and non-traditional commute times • Offering low-income fare products. Caltrain has committed to piloting low-income fare products starting this year as part of the regional MTC SMART program launch • Evolving and simplifying fare structure so that discounts and transfer benefits accrue equitably to all types of riders • Expanding and investing in first- and last-mile access that benefits all types of trips and people with a focus on Communities of Concern that have expressed a desire for better station access such as Bayview in SF and North Fair Oaks in San Mateo County 73
Analysis of the Evaluation Framework Key Questions Measure Themes Long Range Infrastructure Quality Fare Structure+ How does Caltrain Service Vision provide service? Transit service (service planning) + Network Completeness Station Access Affordability* Who benefits or is Safety This analysis of the Long Range Service burdened from those User Perceptions Vision will include qualitative and services? Distribution of quantitative factors – it will focus on Construction/Supportive illuminating how Caltrain’s achievement of Infrastructure the Vision can help equity and will Displacement Risk* How does Caltrain highlight areas where extra focus or Equitable TOD impact surrounding Environmental Impacts* reinforcing policies may be needed land use? Accessibility of Destinations* Stakeholder Representation How are decisions Distribution of Funding Themes in blue are the focus for the evaluation of the service made? Quality of Engagement vision. Themes in gray may arise during conversations with stakeholders and will potentially be used to guide policy (MTC Equity Focus Area)*; (Title VI Equity Focus Area) + recommendations. 74
Making it Happen: Delivering Improved Caltrain Service Before 2040 75 75
Remaining Technical Analysis Making it Happen Building towards the Vision with service concepts for initial With a 2040 Service Vision adopted, what will the electrification and options for growth next 10 years look like for Caltrain? What are the and investment through 2020s key actions and steps we need to focus on next? Additional technical and policy analysis is Accompanying financial underway to focus on what Caltrain can achieve projections and funding plan over the next decade and they key near term steps and work that will be needed to make it happen. Identification of a program of key planning, policy and organizational next steps 76 76
Getting to the 2040 Service Vision CalMod will provide 2040 Amount of tremendous near-term Service Vision Investment/ service benefits to the Number of corridor. However, regional Trains growth projections suggest that there is medium-term demand for even more service. 2022 Working backwards from the Start of 2040 Service Vision, Caltrain 2018 Electrified can explore how to deliver Operations Diesel Fleet key service benefits to the corridor sooner. Design Year 77 77
Key Questions for the Next Decade 1. What is the potential market demand for Caltrain service over the next 10 years? 2. Which benefits of the 2040 Service Vision could Caltrain deliver before 2030? Insert generic corridor picture – • How can we use the initial electrified system ideally one showing tracks (CalMod) to deliver near-term service (but not diesel trains) benefits and best meet market demand? • How could we improve service further through subsequent incremental investments? 3. What will it cost to provide the service the corridor needs over the next decade? What sources of revenue and funding should we plan for? 78 78
Understanding Demand Daily ridership demand for Caltrain service will likely exceed 90,000 passengers per weekday within the next decade. This growth is driven by several factors: Latent Demand Population and Improved Connectivity Employment Growth Improving Caltrain New connections like the service and increasing Station areas will add over Central Subway will capacity will make 100,000 new residents and extend Caltrain’s reach Caltrain more appealing employees within ½ mile of for a wider range of trips Caltrain stations, a ~30% increase over existing 79 79
5 4 20 Existing Highest Ridership Moderate Lower Ridership >4,000 Ridership <2,000 Daily Riders Daily Riders 2,000 – 4,000 Ridership by Daily Riders 22nd Street Bayshore Station South San Francisco San Bruno Broadway Burlingame Hayward Park Belmont San Carlos Atherton Menlo Park California Ave San Antonio Lawrence Santa Clara Tamien 4th & King Capitol Redwood City Millbrae Blossom Hill Palo Alto San Mateo Morgan Hill Mountain View Hillsdale San Martin San Jose Diridon Sunnyvale Gilroy 80 80
8 9 13 Potential Highest Ridership Moderate Lower Ridership Potential Ridership Potential Potential >4,000 2,000 – 4,000 <2,000 2020s Demand Daily Riders Daily Riders Daily Riders by Station San Bruno Broadway Burlingame Hayward Park Bayshore Belmont 4th & King South San Francisco San Carlos 22nd Street San Mateo Atherton Millbrae Hillsdale Tamien Redwood City Menlo Park Capitol Palo Alto California Ave Blossom Hill Mountain View San Antonio Morgan Hill Sunnyvale Lawrence San Martin San Jose Diridon Santa Clara Gilroy 81 81
8 9 13 Potential Highest Ridership Moderate Lower Ridership Potential Ridership Potential Potential >4,000 2,000 – 4,000 <2,000 2020s Demand Daily Riders Daily Riders Daily Riders by Station San Bruno Broadway Burlingame Hayward Park Bayshore Belmont 4th & King South San Francisco San Carlos 22nd Street San Mateo Atherton Millbrae Hillsdale Tamien Redwood City Menlo Park Capitol Palo Alto California Ave Blossom Hill Mountain View San Antonio Morgan Hill Sunnyvale Lawrence San Martin Stations experiencing significant changes San Jose Diridon Santa Clara Gilroy 82 82
Priorities for Opportunities and Recommended Priorities CalMod Increasing service at stations The ongoing electrification of the Caltrain service between San Francisco and San Jose provides a transformative, near-term opportunity to improve Standardizing schedules and enhancing service. connectivity With this investment, Caltrain can begin delivering many, but not all, of the service improvements 4-5 TPH described 2040 Service Vision while also Expanding off-peak service attempting to keep pace with growing market demand. Balancing capacity Staff has developed two illustrative service options that are responsive to the opportunities and priorities identified to the right. 83 83
Two Illustrative Service Plans Two Zone South San Francisco Caltrain has prepared two sets of illustrative San Jose Diridon with service plans to carry forward for further Mountain View San Francisco Redwood City California Ave Hayward Park College Park San Antonio Blossom Hill Burlingame Menlo Park Santa Clara Express San Carlos Morgan Hill San Bruno San Mateo Sunnyvale analysis. Broadway San Martin Bayshore Atherton* Lawrence Palo Alto Hillsdale Belmont Millbrae 22nd St Tamien Capitol Gilroy PEAK PERIOD SF to SJ Two Zone with Express – two zone 2 Trains / Hour 74 min patterns (north and south of Redwood 2 Trains / Hour 70 min City) with a regional express pattern offering 2 Trains / Hour 67 min different travel times and wait times * Future Atherton service levels under discussion Gilroy Service - 4 Distributed round trips per day Distributed Skip Stop – three skip stop South San Francisco patterns offering similar travel times San Jose Diridon Skip Stop San Francisco Mountain View Redwood City California Ave Hayward Park and regular wait times at major stations College Park San Antonio Blossom Hill Burlingame Menlo Park Santa Clara Morgan Hill San Carlos San Bruno San Mateo Sunnyvale Broadway San Martin Atherton* Lawrence Bayshore Palo Alto Hillsdale Belmont Millbrae 22nd St Tamien Capitol Gilroy PEAK PERIOD Diesel SF to SJ EMU Hourly stop Express 2 Trains / Hour 71 min Zone Express Half-hourly stop 2 Trains / Hour 71 min Skip - Stop 71 min 2 Trains / Hour Runtime * Future Atherton service Gilroy Service - 4 levels under discussion round trips per day 84 84
Service Frequency Improvements Because of the growth in demand throughout the corridor, staff recommends prioritizing increased service levels at stations throughout the system (while maintaining competitive travel times). While specific stopping patterns Service Comparison at Stations shown are illustrative, all service concepts considered double the <2 TPH 2-3 TPH 4-5 TPH Existing - SB AM/NB PM number of stations that receive at least four trains per hour, per Existing - NB AM/SB PM <2 TPH 2-3 TPH 4-5 TPH direction. All service concepts provide at least 2 TPH 4 TPH 6 TPH 6 Train Service Plans two trains per hour, per direction to all mainline, regularly served stations. 0 6 12 18 24 85 85
South of Tamien Service Improvements Caltrain would increase service south of Tamien from three to four trains per day with CalMod. +1 Train Under the current agreement with Union AM Trains Pacific, Caltrain can add up to two additional roundtrips to Gilroy to reach five trips per day. Caltrain has committed to adding one additional roundtrip in FY2021. There are <2 TPH 2-3 TPH 4-5 TPH some constraints as to when these trips can Tamien Gilroy Blossom Morgan San Capitol be added without affecting mainline service. Hill Hill Martin <2 TPH 2-3 TPH 4-5 TPH In the future, two of these roundtrips could be extended south to Salinas subject to further planning and agreement by both the Caltrain 2 TPH 4 TPH 6 TPH Board and Union Pacific. PM Trains +1 Train 86 86
Standardizing the Schedule and Enhancing Connectivity Standardized Schedule Example- Each Line 2x per Hour Staff recommends creating a more user-friendly, Line A intuitive service by standardizing the Caltrain Line B Line C service to a repeating, clockface pattern including symmetrical services in both NB and SB directions. Enhancing Connectivity Increased frequency and standardized schedules allow for improved connections with the rest of the region’s rail and transit network. This creates the opportunity to specifically “design” service around key high volume transfers (eg BART connection at Millbrae) and creates new opportunities for better bus and shuttle integration throughout the system. Photo credit SPUR 87 87
Goals Improving Off- • Increase Caltrain’s market share during off-peak and weekend periods Peak and • Offer competitive travel times between major stations Weekend • Maintain flexibility to accommodate construction and maintenance windows Service 6000 24,000 People per Hour in/out of San Francisco (public transit) People per Hour in/out of San Francisco (US-101) 5000 20,000 4000 16,000 With electrification, Caltrain has the opportunity to stretch the peaks and increase 3000 12,000 off-peak and weekend service levels to better meet corridor demand. 2000 8,000 However, operational and financial constraints may affect Caltrain’s ability to fully serve off- 1000 4,000 peak demand. 0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 US-101 Caltrain BART 88 88
How Service Patterns Affect Crowding Balancing Capacity An Ongoing Challenge • Strong corridor demand means that peak-hour capacity is likely to be an ongoing challenge for Caltrain- even as service improvements and expansion are implemented • Caltrain can design its service to better balance demand across all of its trains- but doing so could require eliminating popular peak-hour express service and instead making all trains run at roughly the same speed • The two service options developed by Caltrain present both sides • Looking forward, Caltrain’s best option to prepare for increased demand will be to take the next incremental step beyond CalMod 89 89
Taking The Next Big Step 90
Toward the end of the 2020s, Caltrain is expected to reach capacity during peak hours. Taking the Caltrain will not be able to accommodate Next Step: additional ridership growth in the 2030s without adding capacity. This poses a challenge for accommodating ongoing land Adding Capacity and use growth as well as demand that will be induced by DTX, Dumbarton rail, and other Increasing Service to potential changes on the corridor. Grow Ridership While smaller, interim improvements may ease capacity, the most significant improvement to service and capacity involves expanding service to eight trains per hour, per direction. 91 91
Getting to 8 Trains Per Hour The following parallel and programmatic investments will be an ongoing focus for Caltrain throughout the 2020’s- they are needed to support the overall success of the system and the full implementation of the 2040 Service Vision. Grade Separations Station Improvements Major Investments Planning and construction of Programmatic improvements Work on major terminal projects grade separations and grade to Caltrain stations and (including Diridon and DTX), crossing improvements investments in station major station investments, and access and connectivity partner projects including HSR 92 92
Getting to 8 Trains Per Hour The following key investments would specifically be needed to implement an interim 8-tph service. These investments are consistent with the overall program assumed in the 2040 Service Vision. Expanded EMU Fleet More Train Storage Holdout Rule Elimination Minor Track Work Level Boarding 93 93
8 Train Illustrative Service Plan South San Francisco San Jose Diridon Mountain View San Francisco Redwood City California Ave Hayward Park College Park San Antonio Burlingame Menlo Park Santa Clara San Carlos San Bruno San Mateo Sunnyvale Broadway Bayshore Lawrence Atherton* Palo Alto Hillsdale Belmont Millbrae 22nd St Tamien PEAK PERIOD PEAK PERIOD SF to SJ 4 EMU Trains / Hour 68 min 4 EMU Trains / Hour 70 min *Service level TBD 5 Diesel Trains / Day Capitol Blossom Hill Morgan Hill San Martin Gilroy • An 8-train Caltrain service would likely look like a hybrid of the zone express and skip stop TIMED TRANSFER AT DIRIDON STATION patterns with 8 trains per hour, per direction. • There is limited flexibility in the service structure due to lack of new passing tracks and the constraints of Caltrain’s existing signal system. • An 8-train per hour service requires the mainline to be a fully electrified operation. Diesel service would remain for stations south of Tamien with a timed transfer at Diridon Station; however, service would increase to a minimum of 5 trains per day and the schedule could be fully customized to local travel needs. 94 94
Increasing service from six to eight trains per hour, per direction enables more frequent service to more stations. Increasing With an interim 8 tph service, 20 of 24 mainline Service at stations would receive at least four trains per hour, per direction, and nearly half of stations would receive eight trains per hour, per direction. Stations <4 TPH 4-5 TPH Existing <4 TPH 4-6 TPH 6 Train Service Plans <4 TPH 4 TPH 8 TPH 8 Train Service Plans 0 6 12 18 24 Number of Stations 95 95
Change in Weekday Ridership Over Time 120,000 110,000 Increasing service to 8 trains adds 20,000 riders over three years 100,000 Daily Ridership 90,000 Service improvements from electrification adds 21,000 riders over three years 80,000 70,000 60,000 Caltrain is near-capacity today, which limits ridership growth 50,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Year Electrification Service Plans (6 TPH Peak in 2022) Expanded Service (8 TPH in 2027) 96 96
Investing In Improvement 97
Budgeted Operating Expenses and Revenue Caltrain Today FY 2020 Operating Costs 180 160 & Revenues 140 120 USD Millions 100 Caltrain had a total budgeted Operating Expense of 80 $156 million in FY2020. Of this total, $91 million (58%) were direct TASI O&M costs, $38 million (24%) were for 60 other (non-TASI) operating expenses, $24 million (16%) 40 were for Administrative Expenses, and $3 million (2%) 20 was for Long-term Debt. 0 On the revenue side, Caltrain budgeted for a total of FY20 Operating Expenses FY20 Operating Revenues $156 million during FY2020, of which $114 million (73%) Core Operations and Maintenance was Self-Generated Revenue, $11 million (7%) was in Self-Generated Revenues Contract (TASI) Other Revenues and Funding, and $30 million (19%) Other Operating Expenses Other Revenues & Funding was Local Member Contributions. The remaining $1 million was budgeted to be paid out of the revenue Administrative Expenses JPB Member Contributions stabilization fund. Long Term Debt Revenue Stabilization Fund All costs shown in YOE $ 98 98
Budgeted Capital Expenses and Funding Caltrain Today FY 2020 Annual Capital 50 Costs & Funding 45 40 USD Millions 35 30 25 During FY2020, Caltrain budgeted $47 million for capital 20 expenses related to State of Good Repair, minor system enhancements and legal requirements, and contingency, 15 administration and planning. These expenditures reflect 10 the categories of capital investment that Caltrain must 5 consider and plan for on a recurring annual basis. 0 FY20 Capital Expenses FY20 Capital Funding These capital expenses were funded through a State of Good Repair Federal combination of Federal and State formula funds, a Legal Mandates & Minor State collection of smaller individual sources, and annual JPB Enhancements member agency capital contributions. Other Funding (various) Contingency, Administration and Planning Local Member Contributions 99 99
Example Funding Plans For Recent Projects Caltrain Today Major Capital Peninsula Corridor Electrification 3% Project - $1.98 Billion 10% 11% Projects 38% 31% 58% Major capital projects often span multiple budget years and 49% rely on individualized funding plans. These are developed independently on a project-by-project basis. South San Francisco Station Improvement Project - $67 Million Member agencies may contribute additional funds to 25th Avenue Grade Separation - support large projects - either directly or through county $165 Million specific grant sources. These local funds are often used to 7% Federal Sources (competitive & formula) match qualifying regional, state and federal sources. State Sources (including HSR) Member agencies typically contribute equally to large 53% 40% system wide projects (like electrification). The Regional Sources development of funding plans for more localized projects - Member Agency & County Sources (Shared Equally) like grade separations or the improvement of a specific station - are typically undertaken directly by the specific Individual Member Agency Source (San Mateo County TA in county where the project resides. these examples) Local Jurisdiction (City of San Mateo and City of SSF in these examples) 100 100
Recommend
More recommend
